(22-12-2014 05:35 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote: It's still true. Whether some people decide to use nuclear weapons, or even regular weapons, is not a fault of science. It's the misuse of that knowledge brought through science.

Ok, so if I give some nuclear weapons to your kids, and they use them to start The End Times Apocalypse it's in no way whatsoever my fault, I'm completely blameless, my holiness as the new "One True Way" is utterly preserved.

Here's a thought exercise which will illustrate what I'm getting at about science becoming a new religion. Would we still be saying, "not the fault of the priests, but those who use the weapons"?

(22-12-2014 08:44 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote: Thank you for providing an example of the new science "religion". You are defending science with just the same kind of determined passion that is commonly seen among religious fundamentalists of various flavors.

Science is good, good, good!

I didn't say that.

Quote:Religion is bad, bad, bad!

I didn't say that, either.

Quote:Your making my point for me. For endless centuries one of the reasons people have turned to religion is so they can pose as being superior to somebody else, social competition.

Really? Can you provide evidence of that?

Quote:That very same process continues today, except today many wave the science flag of superiority, instead of the Muslim or Catholic or Jewish etc flag of superiority. Very same process.

What process? It is not about superiority, it is about what works.

Quote:As example, observe how you completely rationalized the following point, because the new "religion" of science must be protected at all costs no matter what.

Quote:The evidence overwhelming suggests that science is most likely leading us to some kind of epic calamity, nuclear war, climate catastrophe etc. And we all sort of know this but....

Quote:No, science leads us to knowledge. Human error, hubris, greed, etc. lead us to catastrophe.

I assure you that if the Catholic Church had invented nuclear weapons instead of scientists, you would not be rationalizing and attempting to shift the responsibility, you'd be blaming Catholics.

It doesn't matter who invented nuclear weapons; how is that germane?

Quote:Scientists invented nuclear weapons, scientists gave us the power to exterminate the human race. Scientists decided to do the research,

Nope. Politicians decided that scientists do the research and development of atomic, then nuclear, weapons.

Quote:scientists did the research, scientists perfected the techniques, scientists improved the weapons to get ever bigger destructive yields, scientists received payment and enjoyed awards for their work. Scientists don't get a free pass, they have blood on their hands too.

What blood? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those bombings saved net lives.

Quote:Scientists didn't actually push the button, that's true, I grant that point. But they did give that button to everybody else on Earth.

I don't have the button. Do you?

Quote:Imagine I am a gun manufacturer and I make machine guns. I never actually shoot anybody myself, but I hand out machine guns to any kid who walks up and asks for one. That's the role scientists played, professional gun merchant.

No, no one gives machine guns to any kid who asks for one. What kind of silly argument is that?

Quote:If you persist in selling the Science Fundamentalism Religion, it is my intention to rip it all in to tiny little shreds, just as we would reasonably do with any flavor of fundamentalism. The clever little dodges, rationalizations and excuses will all be swept away.

I'm not, so go right ahead and shred your strawman.

Quote:Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism. Calling it "science" changes nothing.

You are the only one calling science fundamentalism. And you have not demonstrated your point. At all.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Seriously? Why do you keep harping on about a weapon system that, on the net aggregate. has killed far less people than fire bombing or cluster munitions or land mines? Three far more accessible, deploy-able and in the case of land mines malicious standard ordinances?

Go do some actual reading/studying about Nuclear anything and then have a talk, okay?

(22-12-2014 06:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote: Here's a thought exercise which will illustrate what I'm getting at about science becoming a new religion. Would we still be saying, "not the fault of the priests, but those who use the weapons"?

Lets let you wander off and actually think/study/have a look at nuclear Vs conventional weapons and then you can come back and talk.

Sheesh! It's like you've never heard of the Dresden fire bombing. Or the incendiaries dropped on wooden Japanese cities or land-mines being seeded all through places like Cambodia which are still blowing farmers/children's feet legs off.

Conventional weapons are far more destructive when handled poorly than anything nuclear has done. Get a grip and get over it. Or at least get an understanding so you can shovel stuff over onto the right piles.

(22-12-2014 06:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote: Ok, so if I give some nuclear weapons to your kids, and they use them to start The End Times Apocalypse it's in no way whatsoever my fault, I'm completely blameless, my holiness as the new "One True Way" is utterly preserved.

Here's a thought exercise which will illustrate what I'm getting at about science becoming a new religion. Would we still be saying, "not the fault of the priests, but those who use the weapons"?

Quote:For endless centuries one of the reasons people have turned to religion is so they can pose as being superior to somebody else, social competition.

Quote:Really? Can you provide evidence of that?

Yes, all religious wars.

Quote:That very same process continues today, except today many wave the science flag of superiority, instead of the Muslim or Catholic or Jewish etc flag of superiority. Very same process.

Quote:What process? It is not about superiority, it is about what works.

This is true for a great many people. Not so much on atheist forums though.

And to be fair to atheist forums, our whole culture now tends to look to science in much the same way we used to look to religion. We want to know that somebody is in charge, knows what's happening, is leading us to a better place and so on.

We used to look to Jesus and the Pope etc to be these trusted authorities, but many can no longer believe in those guys, so the need looks elsewhere for a new and better authority to trust, to follow. ,It's completely understandable, as science does excel at delivering the goodies.

The point here is that human beings need to know, just as birds fly and fish swim. So if one authority is dethroned, we will immediately seek out another. This is why religions have persisted in every corner of the world for thousands of years, and why our modern culture has developed a religious-like relationship with science.

I'm not arguing with science, because as members have correctly pointed out, it's just a tool. I'm arguing with that religious-like relationship with science, because it is that blind following that gets us in to trouble no matter the authority is.

As example, that blind relationship of trust in science has our entire culture assuming that "progress" is the only way forward, and that the new god science will take us there.

But what the evidence actually suggests is that the accelerating out of control development of knowledge is likely leading us towards a big cliff. I think most of us realize this on some level, but we don't know what else to believe in, what else to follow, so we keep marching like lemmings towards the cliff.

All I'm advocating is that we aim the very same critical eye we aim at religion at science too. Some religion can be good, too much religion is usually bad. Some science can be good, but that doesn't automatically equal more science being better.

We need to admit the science worship business to ourselves, and then we need to drop the science worship. And then we will be in a position to ask how much science is enough, and how much is too much.

Quote:It doesn't matter who invented nuclear weapons; how is that germane?

It's germane because it illustrates the science worship phenomena. See how you dodged the issue yet again? Science worship.

If we give scientists a free pass for inventing nuclear weapons, but we would have BLAMED!! Catholics if they had done the very same thing, we are experiencing science worship.

Quote:Nope. Politicians decided that scientists do the research and development of atomic, then nuclear, weapons.

More science worship, worship, worship. I'm convinced you would NOT being offering a free pass if the inventors of nukes had been Catholic clergy, and that you probably aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that.

You don't want to admit to the science worship, because then you'd have to do something about, and would be left with nothing to worship. And it's not just you, but our entire culture, marching like science worshiping lemmings towards the cliff.

(22-12-2014 08:44 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote: Thank you for providing an example of the new science "religion". You are defending science with just the same kind of determined passion that is commonly seen among religious fundamentalists of various flavors.

Science is good, good, good!

Religion is bad, bad, bad!

Your making my point for me. For endless centuries one of the reasons people have turned to religion is so they can pose as being superior to somebody else, social competition.

That very same process continues today, except today many wave the science flag of superiority, instead of the Muslim or Catholic or Jewish etc flag of superiority. Very same process.

As example, observe how you completely rationalized the following point, because the new "religion" of science must be protected at all costs no matter what.

Quote:The evidence overwhelming suggests that science is most likely leading us to some kind of epic calamity, nuclear war, climate catastrophe etc. And we all sort of know this but....

Quote:No, science leads us to knowledge. Human error, hubris, greed, etc. lead us to catastrophe.

I assure you that if the Catholic Church had invented nuclear weapons instead of scientists, you would not be rationalizing and attempting to shift the responsibility, you'd be blaming Catholics.

Scientists invented nuclear weapons, scientists gave us the power to exterminate the human race. Scientists decided to do the research, scientists did the research, scientists perfected the techniques, scientists improved the weapons to get ever bigger destructive yields, scientists received payment and enjoyed awards for their work. Scientists don't get a free pass, they have blood on their hands too.

Scientists didn't actually push the button, that's true, I grant that point. But they did give that button to everybody else on Earth.

Imagine I am a gun manufacturer and I make machine guns. I never actually shoot anybody myself, but I hand out machine guns to any kid who walks up and asks for one. That's the role scientists played, professional gun merchant.

If you persist in selling the Science Fundamentalism Religion, it is my intention to rip it all in to tiny little shreds, just as we would reasonably do with any flavor of fundamentalism. The clever little dodges, rationalizations and excuses will all be swept away.

Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism. Calling it "science" changes nothing.

Is all you want to do make vastly unconnected assertions or do you actually want to make points that will encourage people to think openly? I'm seeming the former.

Are there some people with a scientific fundamentalism... YES, is that that the main method of science no.

Science in itself is a process, a process that is being tested in every moment to continually show results that work and have collaboration across fields and peoples international experience. It's just a system and a process that continually shows success. You're implementation of bad/good is irrelevant to any concept of what science does. It's not anything actually consistent nor is it as valid to say the same about religion.

The contrast is religion claims to be an arbiter of good/bad but routinely is misguided in doing so. Religion as a method-system isn't consistent nor testable. That's why it fails to compare to science. It's not any dictation about who does more harm/benefit or any human attachment afterward. It's about systematic study of the forms.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson